Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Name For A400m

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd May 2010, 17:07
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 64
Posts: 2,278
Received 36 Likes on 14 Posts
The Aborted.



Cos it might be.
ZH875 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2010, 17:42
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,808
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
They may not like it but the JSF is going to be called Dave...
Only by spotters and nerds . The same people who think that the Buccaneer was known as the 'Brick' by its crews and that the RAF flew something termed the 'Phantom F Mk 3'*....


It was actually the F-4J(UK) and was flown exclusively by 74(F) Sqn.
BEagle is online now  
Old 23rd May 2010, 18:03
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 53
Posts: 2,068
Received 185 Likes on 69 Posts
How about 'Artists Impression' or 'Future Large Aircraft', but my particular favourite......

The Airbus Industries ' tard.
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 23rd May 2010, 18:08
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It was actually the F-4J(UK) and was flown exclusively by 74(F) Sqn.

Careful bEagle.... That sounds like
Only by spotters and nerds
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 23rd May 2010, 18:32
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,413
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
The C-17 is nicknamed the "Buddha" because it is fat, doesn't move and everyone worships it. So, maybe, the Mini-Buddha?

GF
Couldn't be FRED, already taken by the original FRED, but it is one.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 23rd May 2010, 19:28
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Deepest Lincs
Age: 75
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm suprised that Airbus called it A400M in the first place and not the 'EuroFreighter'.
Motleycallsign is offline  
Old 23rd May 2010, 20:14
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK, US, now more ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 41
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Motleycallsign I'm suprised that Airbus called it A400M in the first place and not the 'EuroFreighter'.
Sometimes the best solutions are the simple and too obvious to notice.. Nice.
MartinCh is offline  
Old 23rd May 2010, 20:29
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,937
Received 2,851 Likes on 1,219 Posts
Quote:
Motleycallsign I'm suprised that Airbus called it A400M in the first place and not the 'EuroFreighter'.
Sometimes the best solutions are the simple and too obvious to notice.. Nice.
I believe the Airbus A300B4 is referred to as Eurofreighters hence why it has not been used.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 23rd May 2010, 22:33
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South West
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wasn't Stella Artois a famous Belgian ?
Hardly Worth it is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 06:54
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'Ere Nutloose - I used to live in Fortess Road - wot a liberty!

I like the Airbus Amberley - sounds alright - seriously. The Australians would like it too.
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 09:59
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: on the beach
Age: 68
Posts: 2,027
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
My suggestion is Cash Cow
Evanelpus is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 11:11
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: mobile
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What about the Insh'Allah??Its about the only way its going to get airborne!!
mtoroshanga is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 13:43
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,937
Received 2,851 Likes on 1,219 Posts
Royalistflyer 'Ere Nutloose - I used to live in Fortess Road - wot a liberty!

I can see it now, a blue plaque mounted on the wall outside yer old ex abode....

'Ere lived Royalistflyer, we named a plane after the street he once lived in.

NutLoose is online now  
Old 25th May 2010, 02:54
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmmmm... I like the idea of a blue plaque recording me ....
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 03:25
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A440M Name

Please tell me the RAAF are not in the least interested in the A400M. After fifty two years of service from the "Lockheed Legends", in four different models, why on earth would the RAAF look at the Airbus product. Massively expensive and, to date, totally unproven.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 11:43
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: these mist covered mountains are a home now for me.
Posts: 1,784
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
Expensive and unproven? It's not stopped the RAAF before.

The F-111 turned out alright
Runaway Gun is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 12:52
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Expensive and unproven

Certainly, the F111 did eventually turn out to be a great aircraft, albiet very much later than anticipated. The "Wing carry-through box" problems took a long time to overcome before the RAAF took delivery. My point is that the C130, from the original "A" model through the "E" and "H" to the current "J" model have all served the RAAF extremely well in all sorts of roles and environments. With the C17 already in service, and the C130 still in production and available if required, what is the point in the RAAF leaving a proven performer for one yet to be proven?
Old Fella is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 15:25
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lockheed Legends?

Sure, do you wanna use them another 40 years?

The thing is, when you want something new, it's usually unproven at first - until it's proven. Of course Oz can wait another 20 years or so and then take a number of Grizzlys (that appears to be the name Airbus engineers chose for it). Upon reflection, I'd call it the Westminster, though...
Rengineer is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 15:46
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Obese Albert
larssnowpharter is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 19:33
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 631
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
I remember the time when the Australians would have happily walked away from the C-130J but the UK was so desperate we talked the Australians into staying with the project.
The problem common to both the A400M and the C-130J is the concept of building and certifying them as civil transports before turning them into military aircraft; it don't work, the manufacturers are clueless on how to do it and it certainly aint cheap.

BTW I like the sound of Atlas C Mk 1
VX275 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.